Thursday, May 27, 2010

You may have read or heard about a recent article on how fliers might end up in a TSA workplace violence database. The fact is, TSA screens nearly 2 million passengers each day at over 450 airports nationwide. Since we began the workplace violence program in 2007, we've screened over a billion air travelers and yet only about 30 passengers are included on this list.

Roughly 30 names out of the more than 1,000,000,000 passengers screened by TSA since 2007 made the cut.

So how did these 30 folks make the list? Two options:

The police got involved. In all but one incident, local police officers responded to assist in resolving the incident.

They got arrested. In the majority of these cases, the individuals involved were arrested or issued summonses by local law enforcement officers for allegedly assaulting a Transportation Security Officer.

In short, to join this select group, a passenger has to commit an egregious act that harms, or threatens to harm, either passengers, airline personnel, or Transportation Security Officers.

35 comments:

Anonymous
said...

What was conveniently left out of this post was that the article states that 240 incidents are on the list. The other 210 incidents actually involve violence between screeners. It seems interestingly that so many incidents for which a database was created actually involve TSA Agents and not the public at all.

Your math is way off, a very large proportion of the screening count are the same people. Almost everyone that flies will do a round trip and be scanned twice. And many many people fly more than once a year.

Are you really trying to claim that 1 in 6 people on the planet has flown through a US airport in the past few years?

Although you may have carried out the act of screening a person 1 billion times, you haven't screened 1 billion unique people - yet you're talking about the number of unique people on the list. It's apples and orange, and that's just not on...

1. There are 30 passengers on the list but 240 incidents. Who are the other 210 incidents about? If they are TSOs, then it seems that even adding the passengers will not make a big impact since your employees are causing the most violence.

2. Of the 30 passenger incidents, how many incidents are caused by the same person? It seems to me that a passenger will not be frustrated or angry *every* time he or she travels. To me this implies that the list has a greater potential of being abused by TSOs.

3. How many of the 30 passengers that were actually arrested were convicted? If a TSO *feels* threatened, then *I* want them to react, but it is also possible that your employee *over-reacted*, which may be indicated by an acquittal.

I would suggest that until TSA decides to require TSA employees to perform their jobs with competence, treat travelers with respect and reevaluate some of the CS screening rules in effect and crack down on TSA thieves that TSA is doing nothing more that urinating into the wind.

I am quite familiar with the Federal Government's Workplace Violence Prevention Program and the system of records required under the law for agencies to create and maintain.

The WVPP exists to prevent violent acts between employees and between employees and the public they serve. It has nothing at all to do with non-employees committing violent acts against employees. That's what assault & battery is for.

The only legal reason to place members of the public in this database is if they were victims of violent acts committed against them by TSA employees. To keep records of citizens who commit acts against TSA employees in this system of records is improper and illegal. Your own filing doesn't even say you keep records on citizens whom you believe committed violent acts against screeners!

Which is it, Bob? Sloppy staff work or another illegal TSA database?

Why did it take your agency nearly 8 years to create this mandatory program?

I would also like to advise all passengers and anyone else who has a confrontation with a screener that filing a workplace violence charge against the screener is entirely appropriate.

So, merely having the police "involved" in your incident will get you listed in a government bad-boy database now?

Even if the police arrest a person doesn't establish that they should be included on such a list. There's a huge difference between being arrested, being charged with a crime, and ultimately being convicted of that crime.

You write that as though getting arrested is a big deal. It's not. It's simply means a police officer suspects a person might have committed a crime. After that, an investigation will be conducted to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to bound the person over for trial. If there is, an indictment is prepared which is simply a vehicle for getting the person before a jury of his peers to ultimately decide whether or not the person has been proven guilty. At any step of the process, the charges can be deemed baseless and dropped; a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Again, arrest doesn't establish guilt; why do so many people have difficulty understanding that?

You state that there are two criteria, either of which may get a person on the "unruly passenger" list:

* "The police got involved."

* "They got arrested."

Then you attempt to reassure us by stating, "In short, to join this select group, a passenger has to commit an egregious act that harms, or threatens to harm, either passengers, airline personnel, or Transportation Security Officers."

Setting aside the question of how someone could get arrested (option 2) without the police being involved (option 1), all that is required for the police to get involved in any situation is for TSA to summon an officer. Once the call goes out, whether for a legitimate purpose or not, the police are "involved".

If all it takes to be placed on yet another secret list is police involvement, then any traveler is subject to capricious, arbitrary action by any TSA screener for any reason whatsoever.

This list is even more egregious than the no-fly or watch list. At least with those two TSA pretends to have a mechanism for redress. You don't even make that claim for this abomination.

Bob your a hypocrite. My old screen name had multiple comments posted then all of a sudden can't because of the "rules". Sound like typical tsa hogwash of changing the rules on the fly for your own needs like has been seen repeatedly at checkpoints around the country. So edit the name and post the comment and answer the question, not dodge it like you normall do.

I think most of you are not looking at the big picture here. Even if the incidents were numbered at around 240, and most, if not all were caused by employees, that sounds like the typical amount of people that are generally rude and extravagant workers.

It's difficult to weed those people out of the work force.

However, 1 billion does seem a bit high. Heck, even if it was a million, I'm still perfectly fine since I try to loyally follow the airline protocol as opposed to nit-picking every aspect of their process.

Mad-taxpayer said... Bob your a hypocrite. My old screen name had multiple comments posted then all of a sudden can't because of the "rules". Sound like typical tsa hogwash of changing the rules on the fly for your own needs like has been seen repeatedly at checkpoints around the country. So edit the name and post the comment and answer the question, not dodge it like you normall do.

June 8, 2010 9:22 PM.........................Mad, comments on this TAX PAYER funded blog are protected as political speech.

If TSA has censored your comments file a civil rights complaint.

The Supreme Court has ruled that political speech is protected and this being an extension of the TSA cannot be legally censored.

Jamorama Guitar said... I think most of you are not looking at the big picture here. Even if the incidents were numbered at around 240, and most, if not all were caused by employees, that sounds like the typical amount of people that are generally rude and extravagant workers.

It's difficult to weed those people out of the work force.

However, 1 billion does seem a bit high. Heck, even if it was a million, I'm still perfectly fine since I try to loyally follow the airline protocol as opposed to nit-picking every aspect of their process.

June 9, 2010 12:24 PM............

When TSA hires known felons I don't think TSA is really trying to weed out the TSA Workforce.

Jamorama Guitar said... I think most of you are not looking at the big picture here. Even if the incidents were numbered at around 240, and most, if not all were caused by employees, that sounds like the typical amount of people that are generally rude and extravagant workers.

It's difficult to weed those people out of the work force.

However, 1 billion does seem a bit high. Heck, even if it was a million, I'm still perfectly fine since I try to loyally follow the airline protocol as opposed to nit-picking every aspect of their process.